Middle-of-the-road perspectives

Month: January 2016

Have you been wondering why ISIS has survived for so long? Why haven’t the U.S. and other major powers joined forces to eliminate these terrorists that commit crimes against humanity every day?

The U.S. is the greatest military force in the world, yet it has been unable to muster the political will or courage to destroy an organization intent on murdering non-Sunnis.

There’s an article in the New York Times that rehashes the same old concerns of the Obama administration about ISIS along with excuses why the U.S. has not attacked the insurgents. For months, Americans have awaited a plan from the president to deal with these thugs before they kill more innocent people. No news yet.

I’ve followed the ISIS situation since it began almost two years ago. From my perspective, the U.S. has been reluctant to unleash bombers and ground troops to Syria and Iraq for the following reasons:

Carpet-bombing ISIS strongholds would result in massive civilian casualties. Collateral damage concerns have completely neutered our military might because insurgents hide among the general population effectively using them as human shields.

When the U.S. destroys an adversary, it believes it has a moral responsibility to rebuild the country after hostilities end. This is always a costly effort in terms of American casualties and treasure. Americans cannot deal with more body bags filled with dead heroes.

There are no compelling strategic reasons for the U.S. to face off against ISIS. Many say that the insurgents are preparing to attack our homeland and other western countries. This is true, but the resultant carnage of an invasion may be too great of a price to pay as compared to relatively small and isolated terrorist incidents. If ISIS were operating in Israel or in another country of an important ally, this argument would be moot.

Why should the U.S. fight the war of others? With ISIS, very little assistance is forthcoming from Middle Eastern nations or our western allies. They know the U.S. has, and will always do the dirty work. Obama is testing this hypothesis by shunning any extensive confrontations with ISIS. Currently, the U.S. has about 3,700 soldiers in the area, hardly enough to defeat even a small enemy force. The president’s strategy has only served to embolden ISIS and frustrate allies who expect us to protect them.

What’s it going to take to kill off ISIS? Most Republican presidential candidates don’t believe anything currently being done in Syria will stem the tide of ISIS. They think the U.S. must be more proactive. That means we must attack with great force and kill the insurgents. Innocents will die. Whether the conscience of the nation can bear such an eventuality is questionable. Yet, the alternatives are not very promising.

Subsequent to an assault, the U.S. should walk away and let the cards fall where they may. This could result in a new insurgency to fill the vacuum. But, another nation-building circus is not politically feasible in America.

Share this:

Like this:

Donald Trump is attempting to change long-standing traditions of how Americans elect presidents. In the process of doing so, he’s using his newfound popularity to bully journalists who dare to ask him difficult questions.

After several months of listening to Trump blather about his plans to save America, I’ve run out of patience. I never took the man seriously during the past 30 years. His television show, “The Apprentice,” certainly didn’t improve my feelings about him.

In real estate, he’s been a daring risk taker. Trump created great wealth, and tremendous financial stress along the way. I prefer not to do business with men who are anxious to bet the ranch, much less have them be my president. To his credit, he made a lot of money and has generated incredible notoriety.

His personality attributes brought Trump great accolades in recent days as he challenged, without tact and diplomacy, those who created current domestic and international problems. Every informed American knows about these issues. Yet, Trump has rammed them down our throats and verbalized feelings most Americans stifle in fear of being labeled a bigot or worse.

Once Trump perceived that he could say almost anything without damaging his burgeoning popularity, he treaded where no one has gone before. He said the U.S. should not allow Muslims from certain hot spots around the world to enter the country. He said he would bomb the sh-t out of ISIS. He said Mexico was exporting undesirables to the U.S. He called his opponents stupid and incompetent.

And now, Trump decided that voters are going to vote for him even if he shuns debates, which have been an important forum for presidential candidates to present their visions of America. He also said, “I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose any voters . . .” Trump thinks he has the election locked up and has challenged a group that doesn’t back down on any encroachment of their turf- the media, and FOX specifically. Kudos to FOX for standing up against Trump, despite the financial impact of the decision to retain Kelly as a moderator.

Megyn Kelly asked Trump some pointed questions in an earlier debate that set him off. Previously, he lauded Kelly’s skills as an interviewer, but turned on her when he thought she turned on him. Nobody is allowed to criticize Donald Trump without incurring his fury, including journalists.

It’s mind-boggling that Trump may get away with yet another outrageous attack on his adversaries. Some say his boycott of the debate could improve his polling.

Why would anyone vote for such an unusual person? Why would any world leader take such a man seriously?

It should be noted that Trump’s predictions and promises have not been supported with comprehensive plans. Using ISIS as an example. Will Trump, as president, order our military to bomb ISIS strongholds even if he knows thousands of innocent citizens will be killed? This is not an issue that can be swept aside, even for the Donald.

Iowa voters have always had a great impact on presidential elections. The most important reason is that the Iowa caucuses are first. A few hundred thousand Iowans, out of three million total population, are in a position to make a great statement when they vote on February 1. I don’t live in Iowa, and I’m insulted that Trump isn’t going to participate in the debate. Iowans should use this moment to make history.

Share this:

Like this:

Many Americans expected Donald Trump to increase the entertainment value of the presidential elections. He has not let us down.

The Donald insulted ethnic groups and women. He used vulgar language in public speeches and attacked his opponents with embarrassing and derogatory rhetoric. Now, with a seemingly insurmountable lead, he has taken the next step. As of this moment, Trump will not participate in the Fox debate tonight because Megyn Kelly is one of the moderators. Trump had a run in with her in an earlier debate on FOX.

This bizarre decision has many Americans asking what Trump is going to do as president when a world leader says or does something that pisses him off. Is he going to have a hissy fit and blackball the leader? Is he going to threaten to invade the country because he objects to the other leader’s comments?

I suspect that presidents are subjected to many situations each day that try their patience and make them angry. Our leaders must be diplomatic and respectful to their counterparts. To not do so could isolate America from very important international events and issues.

Trump is acting a bit naive in believing that his absence from the stage in tonight’s debate will somehow increase his polling. If this stunt does have that effect, we might as well crown Trump as our king right now.

The voters of Iowa have a responsibility to respond to Trump’s despotic attitude. They take their politics seriously in that part of the country and expect candidates to be able to deal with angry and self-important journalists. Megyn Kelly is his nemesis and her participation has infuriated Trump. He thinks he can control the political process including the vetting of candidates by the voters. This is a dangerous precedent and Iowa voters are our first line of defense.

I think the reaction of Trump to Ms. Kelly’s role is emblematic of what we should expect if he is elected president. The media will not back off; they have an obligation to seek the truth at all costs. If Trump incurs some bad times as president, which he will, the newspapers, TV talking heads and the blogs are going to roast him just like every other president in modern times.

Trump has convinced me that he should remain in the real estate business where he can bully people with his money and influence. World leaders aren’t gong to stand for childish and affected responses to controversial events.

America is depending on Iowa to take the first step in deterring Trump’s political aspirations.

Share this:

Like this:

New Yorkers are buzzing about the possibility of Michael Bloomberg entering the presidential race. According to one media outlet, “He is said to be alarmed at the Democratic poll-leader Hillary Clinton’s alleged shift to the left and Republican frontrunner Donald Trump’s aggressive rhetoric on immigration.” But, I suspect we’re going to be disappointed.

Bloomberg cannot realistically win the election as an Independent. He needs the support of one of the two major parties to effectively run a campaign and win the Electoral College. Moreover, at this late stage, it would be next to impossible to build a nationwide organization to solicit the requisite votes to win.

Bloomberg would have to overcome some major hurdles to become president. He was originally a Democrat who became a Republican and then an Independent while he was Mayor of New York City. So, he hasn’t built a huge amount of loyalty from any political party. Another issue is that he’s a billionaire. Having two billionaires in the presidential race might be too much for the American electorate to bear.

Most think it would be impossible for Bloomberg to enter the race as a Republican because he’s an avid gun control advocate who has spent millions on the issue. Moreover, he supports a woman’s right to choose. No way, in this climate, will the GOP back a person who is liberal on such controversial social issues.

So, the only realistic option Bloomberg has is to run as a Democrat, and he seems reluctant to run against Hillary in the primaries, unless, of course, she’s forced to resign because of continuing scandal investigations.

The good news is that Bloomberg has no money concerns, and doesn’t need to solicit outside financial support. Also, he’s recognized as one of the most successful people in America. His business acumen as a strategic thinker and as a manager of people is second to none. Politically, he was a huge success leading New York City during some very difficult times after 9/11.

Unlike Ross Perot, who was determined to be a spoiler in the 1992 presidential election, Bloomberg doesn’t strike me as the kind of person who would run just to prevent another candidate from winning. If he decides to get into the contest, it will be because he wants to win.

The most delicious possibility would be a match up between Trump and Bloomberg. It would be a carnival atmosphere in the Big Apple. Billionaire versus billionaire.

I suspect Bloomberg would win this contest, but I seriously doubt he will actually jump into the fray. This is a September 2015 quote from Bloomberg appearing in the National Review: “I am 100 percent convinced that you cannot in this country win an election unless you are the nominee of one of the two major parties. The second thing I am convinced of is that I could not get through the primary process with either party.”

Share this:

Like this:

The presidential election is becoming more convoluted every day. Most noteworthy are Donald Trump’s surging support throughout the primary process even as he eschews political correctness, Hillary Clinton’s incompetent campaign and the increasing commentary about her un-trustworthiness and Bernie Sanders’ growing popularity among millenials despite being a socialist.

Some are so taken aback by the current standings in the Republican polls that they are questioning the accuracy of them. A New York Times story indicated that a New Hampshire poll, which showed Trump with about 32% support, must be untrue. Some New Hampshire voters are asking where are the people voting for Trump? One man said he only knew the majority who were not voting for the Donald.

Most frustrating for Republicans is that the competitors for the presidential nomination are attacking each other more viciously. It didn’t start out this way with Trump and Cruz, but now their TV ads are becoming more aggressive towards each other every day. Trump says Cruz may not be qualified to be president because he was not born in the U.S. Cruz hit a low point by suggesting that Trump was for eminent domain, a government process that absconds land from Americans to serve other purposes, like construction by Trump companies. Who cares about ED (eminent domain, that is)? Let’s talk about the economy, taxes and terrorism.

The candidates are competing to have the most pugnacious policy for problems in the Middle East. Trump says he is going to “bomb the sh-t out of [ISIS].” Cruz told Fox News “. . . yes that means carpet bombing [ISIS] into oblivion.” The more bellicose, the better. The ramifications of bombing civilian areas, otherwise referred to as collateral damage, must be considered carefully. One wonders how the American public will respond to thousands of innocent deaths in Syria.

To this point, Trump has dashed the generally accepted theory that a candidate must cater to his or her base in the primaries and move to center in the general election. The Donald is about as populous as a candidate can be. Yet, he is attracting many evangelicals in Iowa and right wing voters as well. It will be interesting to see whether Trump pivots in the general election, if he wins the primary.

On the Democratic side, most of the chatter is about Hillary Clinton’s latest version of the truth regarding a number of scandals. If any other person in this country were as cavalier as she about her emailing on a personal computer while Secretary of State, they would have been indicted already. Consider General David Petraeus.

It’s also mind boggling to think that the F.B.I. is pursuing Clinton as she’s campaigning for president. What level of crimes, lies and distortions are necessary to disqualify a person form being president of this country?

The current president is remaining “neutral” in the Democratic race, even though he is not so secretly helping Hillary and bashing Sanders. Obama must love all the accolades he’s receiving from Hil and Bernie. But, we all know they’re only lauding the president’s legacy to gain his favor.

The newest development is that the former mayor of New York City, Michael Bloomberg, is considering a run for the presidency as an independent. Wow. It just might be successful, given the lack of quality candidates we currently have in the race. Mike is one of the smartest and most respected Americans in the country, although he is not widely known away from the East Coast. And, of course, he has a couple of billion dollars lying around that he can use to finance his political aspirations.

I hope Mike makes a run.

Share this:

Like this:

The Republican primaries controversy is becoming more bizarre every day. The New York Times has an article today that actually considers which candidate, Trump or Cruz, would do more damage to the party. My question is why would Republicans select either of these men as their standard bearer if they were so dangerous?

Some still question whether Trump really wants to be president. The notoriety of running for the most important office in the world, coupled with the challenge of beating elitist politicians at their own game may be what is driving the Donald. His own worst nightmare may be winning the White House.

Trump is unabashed about criticizing anyone who attacks him or stands in his way. It’s how he has done business for years. Crush your opponents.

Trump doesn’t give a damn about Republican ideology. For instance, decreasing the deficit is the only sensible business decision for Trump. Too much debt is perilous in his mind. Reduction of frivolous spending is an easy concept for him to grasp. Real politicians worry about how many votes will be lost if a government program is eliminated; Trump won’t. He will challenge all expenditures regardless of their impact on congressional districts. In a way, he’s pure and innocent, unburdened by political processes.

Similarly, Trump has made up his mind that certain nations and their leaders are not true friends. He will do everything in his power to disenfranchise them before they do harm to America. The immigration controversy is a perfect example. Trump is going to build a wall to stop the inflow of illegals from Mexico because he has concluded that Mexico is shipping undesirables to the U.S. He points out that these people are creating economic, political and social problems for the country.

The same is true about Trump’s edict that he will halt immigration of Muslims from certain Arab states. Rightly so, Trump believes that insurgents are attempting to enter the U.S. and create havoc. He feels justified because his actions will prevent terrorist activity. So, he could care less about political correctness or profiling taboos.

Ted Cruz is another story all together although he would focus on many of the same issues as Trump. Cruz is religious about his desire to make America stronger and safer. But, he’s driven by his own ideology.

Cruz is committed to a type of conservatism that isn’t widely accepted by Republicans. He wants to educate outliers about the dangers of large and intrusive government. Cruz is intent on driving more decisions and expenditures down to the state level thereby giving them more autonomy.

In a way, Cruz is an old time Republican who eschews everyone who doesn’t perceive the value of his conservative principles. This attitude has made him unpopular in Washington with the opposition and with many in his own party. He calls out his colleagues in public forums if they have a different view of an issue than he has. Saying your allies are hypocrites and cowards is not a recipe for political success.

Many Republicans believe Cruz is going in the wrong direction. Rather than trying to expand the Republican tent, he’s alienating many with his radical conservative perspectives. Effectively, this makes Cruz unelectable as president, in the eyes of many.

For months, the Republican Party has struggled with the bellicose group known as the Tea Party. Cruz personifies the extreme views of this group. Traditional Republicans are concerned that the party has become too ideological and less mainstream, which may sow the seeds of its demise.

If the Republican Party is debating which candidate will do the least damage, as opposed to the most good, maybe it doesn’t have the right person to lead the party.

I like many of Trump’s ideas. He’s a great salesman, but can he run a government? Cruz is off the grid. He represents a great danger, but we need not worry because he’s unelectable.

Share this:

Like this:

Should you support Hillary Clinton? She was supposed to walk away with the nomination and annihilate any Republican challenger (just like in 2008?). It’s not working out because many voters are really tired of Clinton’s arrogance and entitlement. And, just like the old days, Hillary has given us much to substantiate our doubts about her integrity.

Clinton continues to be caught up in lies and distortions. Three specific situations are worth considering.

Clinton was Secretary of State when the U.S. embassy in Benghazi was attacked in September 2011. The ambassador and three other Americans were murdered that day. Immediately, Clinton and her minions vociferously attributed the attack to an anti-Muslim video that denigrated the prophet Mohammad. Yet, Clinton emailed her daughter at the same time and said, terrorists conducted the attacks.

Skeptics queried why the administration continued to insist that the Benghazi event was not a terrorist incident. It became clear that Clinton was protecting the president who was running to serve a second term; the election was just a few weeks after the terrorist incident. Previously, Barack Obama told the nation that terrorism was under control, and the terrorist attack contradicted his declaration. The real truth may have changed the outcome of the 2012 presidential election. It should be noted that the administration changed its view and said that terrorists were responsible. The leader of the terrorists has since been apprehended.

Should a person who apparently lies whenever it is convenient be elected president? Should the nation consider a candidate that may be indicted by the F.B.I.? What’s going to happen to our election process if Clinton must withdraw from the campaign before or after the Democratic Convention? Who’s going to replace her, it this occurs?

Once again, the Clintons are creating controversy by their questionable actions. It appears that voters are becoming more frustrated by the continuing dramas that follow Hillary and her husband. This may be the principal reason that Bernie Sanders, a self-proclaimed socialist, is gaining ground on the overwhelming favorite.

Share this:

Like this:

Yesterday’s events were a crushing blow for Ted Cruz. Two political powerhouses gave him the cold shoulder, which may very well end senator’s campaign to become president.

Terry Branstad, the Republican governor of Iowa “wants Cruz to be defeated” in his state’s caucuses. He said the Texas senator was a “big oil candidate” who would be bad for Iowa’s large farming and agricultural sectors.

Palin is a hugely popular figure among Tea Party members and was a strong supporter of Cruz in his campaign to become senator in Texas. But, she abandoned him for the more moderate Trump.

Palin said, “He’s going rogue left and right, man.” Not sure what the lady is referring to, but it seems to have rung a bell with Iowa voters. Trump lauded Palin’s influence over conservatives in the country.

Cruz has employed a risky political strategy since his election to the Senate. He has strained relations with just about everybody in Washington including his fellow Republicans. Generally, he believes Republicans are not conservative enough, and they have not opposed President Obama’s policies as vigorously as they should have. For his overall perspectives, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) has labeled Cruz a “wacko bird.”

Frankly, many have been surprised that Cruz has done as well as he has to this point. He is a great debater and very smooth on stage and on the political trail, which accounts for much of his popularity. But, he has little support away from evangelicals and unhappy right wing Americans. This base would not be large enough to carry the presidential election in the minds of most.

Cruz has taken the strongest stance on the most controversial issues in America including abortion, gay rights, welfare and immigration. Most disconcerting is his aversion to even consider compromise.

It’s time for Cruz to walk away from the election. He has insufficient political support from his own party and from members of the Tea Party. Ironically, Sarah Palin, a Tea Party rock star, has driven a stake into the heart of Cruz’s political dream.

Share this:

Like this:

The presidential campaign is getting stranger by the minute. The participants are jockeying for position in the upcoming Iowa and New Hampshire primaries and making increasingly more partisan comments. But, let’s focus in on Hillary Clinton and the two guys competing against her.

Unbelievably, Hil is being challenged by Bernie Sanders, who has pulled close to her in Iowa. Hil just can’t catch a break. In 2008, an unknown community organizer with absolutely no experience took her to the cleaners. All of her resume high points, including being First Lady for eight years and serving as a senator, came to nothing in the end.

Now, a guy whose greatest initiative as president will be to abscond as much money from the affluent and create the largest welfare state in history, is making Clinton sweat.

In the meantime, Hil is being tormented on a number of fronts for alleged improprieties. The FBI is investigating Email-gate. Conservative pols and movie makers are saying she lied during Benghazi-gate. And Democrats can’t believe she is endorsing OB’s legacies, such as handing Iran nukes on a silver platter, leading from behind in the Middle East and making prisoner swaps with kidnappers and terrorists. I suppose the Obamas and the Clintons kissed and made up. It’s interesting what politicians will do for their legacy and careers.

The most captivating episode relates to the reemergence of Bill Clinton on the political scene in support of his wife. There are a few things of note. They include the activities of the Clinton Foundation. Apparently, Bill was collecting really big checks from foreign countries in exchange for favors. Sometimes favors involved making speeches, and other times, it is alleged, the donors received favorable consideration from Hil’s State Department.

Donald Trump is saying that Bill’s dalliances are fair game in the campaign, given that Hil is criticizing Republicans for being anti-women (along with several other “anti” designations). As you may remember, Hil was indelicate towards all the women who accused Bill of indiscretions.

And finally, Hil is torn about using her hubby on the stump. The bottom line is that she is no better than mediocre giving political speeches. But, when she has to follow Bill, she sounds really awful.

It’s a waste of time discussing Sanders because he really has no chance to win the nomination. Nobody really cares about Iowa or New Hampshire except Iowa and New Hampshire residents. Starting with South Carolina, Clinton will blow her Democratic competitors away; that includes the other guy that was on stage this weekend during the debates.

The fact that Sanders has been afforded any credibility speaks loudly about our political system in general and the Democratic Party. Nevertheless, something is going on in the country that is causing voters to eschew establishment candidates in favor of outsiders, renegades and loudmouths.

Well, you can’t get more outside than Sanders. He wants to bring down capitalism along with all the banks. He plans to tax the hell out of the affluent far beyond the current 50% or so level and give trillions to the poor, even if they are able bodied.

World leaders are going to be laughing hysterically if America votes Trump or Sanders into office. I firmly believe most Americans appreciate this, so it will not happen. Unfortunately, the alternatives are pretty sad as well.

Share this:

Like this:

President Obama addressed Congress last night in his final State of the Union address. I’m relieved that I will no longer have to sit through another attempt by the president to convince America that he is a superstar.

The expectations for the first African American leader of the free world were very lofty when he exploded onto the political scene prior to the 2008 election. We all had such high expectations. Unfortunately, he has been unable to deliver the goods.

The reasons for Obama’s less than mediocre performance are attributable to the obstructionist Congress according to Democrats, and to the president’s unwillingness to build bridges to his opponents if you ask Republicans.

Regardless of where you think blame lies, the world is a much more dangerous place because of the president’s insular worldview and refusal to acknowledge the perspectives of those who disagree with him.

The problems for this president began almost immediately. With a huge mandate and the control of both houses of Congress, he began a campaign to build his legacy without concurrence from Republicans. Most of his opponents expected him to collaborate with them in the spirit of bipartisanship; but it never happened.

Obama had little experience when he moved into the White House; he was an amateur who did not know the inner workings of Washington. One would have to believe that more seasoned politicians informed Obama that cooperating with others would pay huge dividend in the future. But, Obama assumed total control. The result was twofold. Democrats ramrodded Obamacare down the throats of Americans, his first legacy undertaking. And, just a few months later the death of Ted Kennedy and the election of a Republican to replace him caused Democrats to lose their filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.

The ensuing months and years have been chock full of political divisiveness and fights over budgets culminating in Republican majorities in both Houses. Republicans were unable to enact new laws because they could not overcome the Senate filibuster or the president’s veto. And, every proposal by Obama was dead on arrival in Congress.

To make matters worse, the president continues to challenge his opposition by circumventing Congress’ duty to propose and make laws. Using presidential regulations, Obama has changed existing laws unilaterally. This bold and brazen snub of our Constitution could have a lasting impact on the country and the relationship between the two political parties.

From his first day in office, President Obama began to work diligently on his legacy. He wanted to be the second coming of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Domestically, he fell short because his objectives for the country were not consistent with the majority of Americans. And, he squandered the opportunity to convince Congress that his ideas had merit.

Last night, the president tried to convince us that has legacy is great. But alas, nobody believed it including members of his own party. For every victory he lauded, we all knew something was misleading about what he said.

Obama said that the U.S. has the greatest military force in the world, by far. Yet, discord overseas has never been greater because America shirked its responsibility to lead others against mutual enemies. The U.S. has acted ineffectively after so many new crises including ISIS in Syria and Iraq, Ukraine, Iran, North Korea and the Russian invasion of Crimea. Obama’s inaction has disappointed our allies, and they no longer believe America will fulfill obligations to them.

Obama said Obamacare provided medical coverage to 18 million uninsured Americans. But, we know that over 12 million represent Medicaid. These people could have been given insurance without spending billions on a new medical infrastructure. Also, the timing of Obamacare just as the country was entering a huge recession made the implementation of the entitlement that much more challenging.

Obama said that unemployment is at a low point of 5%. But, we know that if you add back those who have given up looking for a job, the rate is closer to 10%. And, many of the millions of new jobs Obama touts are low paying positions or part time.

Obama continues to attack the most successful in the country even though they pay for most of America’s needs. The president has stoked class warfare, and the bad feelings associated with it. Taking money from the wealthy and giving it to the poor is unworkable. A much more productive strategy would be to put everyone to work and have them earn their keep.

One the most dangerous tactics of the administration has been its diversion away from national security. The country has any number of important long-term problems such as climate change, education, voters’ rights, etc. However, peace-loving people around the world are on edge about the threat of terrorism. Many of us feel insecure, and the president’s stubborn approach towards radical Islamic elements is disquieting. National security should be the president’s most important concern.

We all know that ISIS and Al Qaeda do not pose existential threats to America, but they do to many countries in the Middle East including our most important ally, Israel. And, terrorists have proven that they can attack us on our homeland; consider 9/11 and more recent events. The president’s burning desire to make a nuclear deal with Iran does have existential implications for the U.S. A nuclear Iran, at some point, will be a real threat to America. World War III is not imminent, but it might be if an unhappy ayatollah or a crazed isolated leader in Asia decides to launch nuclear missiles at one of our allies.

The country has spent more money during the Obama administration than any other time in history. Yet, welfare is at a high point, our military is less ready, our infrastructure is crumbling, health care still threatens to bankrupt the country and so on.

The State of the Union speech was a melancholy event. The sadness and disappointment of Americans relating to President Obama is obvious. He was taking victory laps even though most Americans know he did not perform up to historical standards by any measurement.